Dear All,
Just a quick (?) comment on the last couple of questions that Debbie
posed about research being useful (I know it's a bit tangential, but
what the hell).
Some reckon that psychological (and other) research merely serves to
maintain the status quo as it exists at the moment, especially as it
relates to social spheres of operation (e.g. poverty, ill health,
inequality). They argue that psychologists are mainly white and middle
class, so the results that benefit them most will (unconsciously) be
filtered into society in order to shape it. This may be an extreme view
(which I personally do believe), but the question it raises is valid -
we should look closely at where investigators may be 'coming from'.
This may not be so pertinent when considering e.g. abstract cognitive
modelling, but it is when research purports to tell us about how we
operate socially.
An example: the Pioneer Foundation is a right wing, highly patriotic
organisation in America who fund research into intelligence and ethnic
minorities. Surprise, surprise, all of the research they fund finds
that white intelligence is superior to black (what they neglect to
publish is that on the same scale, oriental intelligence is superior to
white...).
So I guess that we must ask ourselves several questions when confronted
with controversial research: Is it useful, as Debbie said, and Do the
people who fund it have an agenda?
I (again personally) believe that the more objective research is in
danger, as public funds are continually squeezed, because money has to
come out of the private sector, where a return is expected; the return
may be in the form of results that further their cause.
Nick.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:23:16 GMT